Lets get back to the bible...

Discussion in 'Off Topic Area' started by Banpen Fugyo, Jan 19, 2005.

  1. Capt Ann

    Capt Ann Valued Member

    Aiki: NIV is the most widely used translation now, so it is very good to use in a group setting. I personally don't like it, though. I use two (sometimes three) main Bibles for my personal study. For indepth study, I like the New American Standard, because it is extremely accurate. For reading at night when I am dog-tired and can hardly keep my eyes open, I use the New Living Translation because it is fairly accurate, but extremely readable. In fact, I first got it to read to my children. I like to use it for teaching my 4th-5th graders in Sunday School.

    KT: The New American Bible is a very good translation, and IMO the best balance between accuracy and readability available in a Catholic translation. You might also try the New Revised Standard, an update on the Revised Standard, also approved for use in Catholic churches. I'd stay away from the King James: it's good for poetry and historical reasons, but our understanding of ancient languages is so much better nowadays (due to all the ancient manuscripts that have been found and studied) that there are just so many better translations now available.

    All: There is one very new translation available that I have been using a lot lately. It is based on many of the same manuscripts as the New Revised Standard, it is extremely accurate, and it is more readable than the NASB. In fact, it is about to replace the NASB as my favorite Bible translation. It is called the English Standard Bible.

    I like switching translations every so often--I find it helps give new light on passages that I thought I 'knew' really well. Instead of just skimming through those sections I'm familiar with, I can find new insights each time I read those same passages.

    Oh, and
    Yes, there is such a thing. I don't know if you remember someone named Larry Christiansen.....he wrote "The Christian Family" and several other classic books on Christian family life and marriage. He is/was the pastor of the Lutheran church where my husband recommitted his life to the Lord, somewhere near San Pedro, CA, I think.
     
  2. Kinjiro Tsukasa

    Kinjiro Tsukasa I'm hungry; got troll? Supporter

    Capt Ann, with all the different Bible translations around, I'd like to get your opinion on this: which version do you think is the best formal equivalence translation, which is the best dynamic equivalence translation, and which do you think represents the best compromise between the two?
     
  3. Capt Ann

    Capt Ann Valued Member

    Whoa, KT!!!!!! Someone's been doing their homework! :love:

    This is my personal opinion:

    Best Formal Equivalence: New American Standard Bible (NASB)
    Best Dynamic Equivalence: New Living Translation (NLT)
    Best Compromise: Keeping in mind that I personally lean very heavily towards formal equivalence, The English Standard Bible (ESB).

    I like the way the English in the English Standard Bible flows, but I still find the translation very accurate. I find it more readable than the NASB, without sacrificing accuracy. The New American Standard has been around longer, so it is easier to find study helps (concordances, commentaries, etc.) that use this translation. The NASB also does a very good job with footnotes. The NLT is my favorite Bible to recommend for younger readers, those who honestly don't read that well (or who don't enjoy reading), or for those who have never read a Bible before.
     
  4. Johnno

    Johnno Valued Member

    Capt Ann,

    I hope you don't mind me butting in here, but I'm curious about something.

    When you were comparing the accuracy of the translation of various different Bibles, what were you basing it on? Have you read them in their original language? Or are you going on advice from other sources?

    Regards :)
     
  5. flaming pearl

    flaming pearl New Member

    How strange, I was just about to ask something very similar. Was just wondering if anyone here has read 'the original' so to speak - ok I appreciate there's not really any one text you could call the original, what I mean is, anyone read any of the books in ancient Hebrew? As a linguist, I appreciate just how much is lost in translation which is why from a purely academic view, I think Capt Ann has a really great attitude to Bible study.
     
  6. Gyaku

    Gyaku Valued Member

    An interesting thread. There seems to be quite a bit of nit picking when it comes to various intepretations of the Bible, an atheist, Pentacostal Christian etc.

    As a psychologist one of the things I have been very interested in is modern church pratices. In some quarters there has been some criticism of certain rituals, such as being 'slain in the spirit'. An ongoing survey of health care workers (doctrs, psychologist etc) has indicated that these have a negative effect on mental health in a significant percentage of participants (perhaps as high as 20% in some cases)

    Of course there is also the dramatic episode of Benny Hinn and the old lady dying after a member of his congregation fell on her after being 'slain in the spirit'. Comments?
     
  7. Johnno

    Johnno Valued Member

    One thing that fascinates me from a psychological point of view is the way that religous groups are just like political groups in terms of being either pluralistic and accepting of a variety of different viewpoints, or else very narrow and rigid in their viewpoints. Just like political parties of the far right and the far left will split and divide over the slightest difference in doctrine (or clash of personality!) so will these 'extreme' religous groups divide. The 'exclusive brethren' type denominations seem to be a good example of this.

    From a political point of view, this phenomenon was parodied very well in Monty Python's 'Life of Brian'. The religous equivalent is covered nicely in one of Garrison Keillor's 'Lake Wobegon' books.

    Personally I don't believe that particular religous practises necessarily cause particular mental health problems. I think that people who are prone to certain conditions are more likely to be drawn to particular 'unusual' religous groups, whose practises may in turn reinforce and exacerbate the individual's existing condition.

    Of course it's a different matter for children who are brought up within a particular religous group. I've known people who were brought up as Jehovah's Witnesses who believed (rightly or wrongly) that their upbringing had left them profoundly 'messed up'.
     
  8. Gyaku

    Gyaku Valued Member

    Thats certainly true in many cases, its like taking the wrong medicine, it either has no effect or it makes your condition worse. Some people we interviewed for instance were told after a 'Healing Prayer' pray session that they no longer needed to take their medication. No suprise when they relapsed soon afterwards.
     
  9. Kinjiro Tsukasa

    Kinjiro Tsukasa I'm hungry; got troll? Supporter

    Back on topic, and back to the Bible. I was searching around the web, and found a book called "The Precise Parallel New Testament". It reproduces the New Testament, section by section, side by side, in seven different versions -- Greek text, King James Version, Rheims, Amplified Bible, New International Version, New Revised Standard Version, and the New American Bible. How cool is that? (There is a similar book which includes King James Version, New American Standard Bible, New International Version, New Living Translation, New Century Version, and Contemporary English Version).

    I read neither Greek nor Hebrew, so I'm stuck with the English translations. C'est la vie.
     
  10. AZeitung

    AZeitung The power of Grayskull

    Mais, tu lis francais?
     
  11. Capt Ann

    Capt Ann Valued Member

    Very good question. It is actually a combination of both.

    I've been studying and have gotten to where I can 'almost get by' in the koine Greek. The problem is, though, in studying a language for yourself, that you are still relying on someone else's opinion (someone had to write the vocabulary, instructions, grammar, translation rules, etc.).

    You really don't need to learn an ancient language to study the Bible for yourself, though. That is why having so many good translations available is such a plus. You can compare all of them, and see which translate word-for-word, and which translate whole phrases with ideas/concepts. You can get a consensus of what the message is, note any place where there is any disagreement, then study those areas in greater detail.

    KT--I love the idea of having a good parallel Bible!!

    I haven't found any of the major Bible translations that show any discrepancy/disagreement in any major point of doctrine or belief.
     
  12. megk

    megk New Member

    CaptAnn,

    Quick question...How come you don't care for the NIV?

    And...Is the ESB the bible that was previously called the New Geneva Bible? What do you think about The Message?

    I teach Junior High youth group and I'm wondering if I should read out of a different version?

    All,

    Bible study is so fulfilling. I encourage all to read and read. Whatever version is easiest for you is the one you should use. CaptAnn is right, none of the versions mentioned are doctrinaly lacking or contradictory. I use the Thomson Chain Reference in NIV.
     
  13. Capt Ann

    Capt Ann Valued Member

    MegK: About NIV: Have to admit, my dislike of the NIV is more based in personal prejudice and preference than in sound reasoning and translation (as in, 'I've got a bad feeling about this....'). I prefer translations that are more formal in approach, and the NIV leans more towards dynamic equivalence than what I would personally like to use.

    With that said, I do have some problems with the company that publishes the NIV. Holding the copyright on a Bible translation is very important. On the plus side, it assures that no one can publish a book, call it a such-and-such translation, and alter anything in it in any way. On the negative side, it sometimes means that big money and marketing are involved in the Bible translation process. The NIV is translated and the copyright owned by the United Bible Society (UBS). However, rights to publish it in the UK are owned by Houghton Stodadrd (spelling?), and publishing rights in the US are owned by Zondervan, a division of Harper Collins. This means that there are slight differences in the NIV Bibles sold in the UK and in the US. Also, both Houghton and Harper Collins are secular companies. There has always been concern in some quarters that marketing and sales issues might overshadow, or at least influence, the Bible translation philosophy. Houghton, for instance, has published in the UK the "Inclusive Language NIV", which neuters many masculine references to God, and removes usage of the standard English generic "he". In many cases, these changes are not at all warranted by the Biblical text, but were made because people wanted to buy a politically correct Bible, and there was a market for it.

    In the US, there has been far greater pressure against such a move (check websites for Focus on the Family and for The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood for lots of details), and under intense pressure from Evangelical groups in the US, Zondervan scuttled its plans that were already in process for such a translation. Recently, however, Zondervan has released a new translation called 'Today's NIV' (TNIV), which was designed as a 'gender-accurate' revision to the NIV. Many of the changes in this newer 'update' are actually in keeping with the ancient Biblical languages (such as translating 'anthropos' as 'humankind' or 'human' instead of 'man', or using 'brothers and sisters' to translate 'adelphoi' in some instances). In other places, it is not so clear that the changes are warranted by the Biblical text. In still others, the changes are forced and grammatically incorrect.

    As of right now, there have not been language/translation changes in the NIV to reflect culture rather than the Biblical text. As it stands right now, the NIV is a fairly good, respectable translation.

    I've seen people on this forum say over and over that they don't trust the Bible because 'it's been changed'. Those who know history know that this is a false statement--the entire Old Testament was translated into Greek in 250 BC, and manuscripts of Greek translations and complete Hebrew texts are available today from these times. New Testament manuscripts are still in existence that date from the first century AD. Nothing has changed. Someone starts messing with Biblical translations so that they better fit our current culture, and people will start all over with claims that the Bible has been changed....only this time they would be right. It is no wonder that the greatest resistence to the TNIV and the Inclusive NIV have come from Christian groups that believe in the literal inerrancy of the Bible as the Word of God.

    On other notes: ESB is not the same as New Geneva Bible. If the New Geneva Bible is the one I'm thinking of, it is actually an older trtanslation, but includes the notes found in the Geneva Bible (with John Calvin's notes, and the one the Pilgrims brought with them as the first Bible routinely used in the Americas).

    I personally like the Message, but you should be aware that it is a paraphrase, and not a true translation. This means it will be very easy to read. It is a good choice for someone uncomfortable reading the Bible, or who has never read the Bible, or who has no church background (and might really stumble over words like "redemption", "justification", etc.). It also means, however, that you are getting one person's interpretation of the Bible built right into what you are reading.

    Personally, I think The Message is a good choice for a Junior High youth group.
     
  14. ladystar

    ladystar Valued Member

    Another interesting things..

    Hugs, everyone!

    I noticed some inquiry dealing with translations of the Bible...

    For your pleasure, and hopefully, study, here's an interesting site:
    http://davies-linguistics.byu.edu/polyglot/

    At this site, you may choose your language, then several diffirent points in history, and the subsequent translations will appear, side by side, for any verses you wish. It kind of shows how translation can vary the original!

    Also, there is a coptic Gospel (Gospel according to St. Thomas) floating around..this was part of the Dead Sea Scrolls. I have a copy saved on this com, if anyone would like to see it?

    Enjoy!

    Blessings... luv, Jess
    ;)
     
  15. shinbushi

    shinbushi Reaver

    I am glad that not all forms of Christianity believe that non-Christians go to hell. Vatican II discuss this. Also Unitarians don't belive this. Because if non Christians ALL go to Hell then 2/3 of the human race of every generation go to hell.
     
  16. ladystar

    ladystar Valued Member

    wow!

    Hugs, Shinbushi, :D

    I've been catholic, methodist, local church, wisewoman, baptist, jewish, islamic, unitique (slightly different from unitarian), and more...

    Am a minister, also..in at least 3 religions...

    And I honestly don't believe God would separate anyone from His/Her/Its love...after all, there is no place that God does not exist! For my more straightlaced christians brothers and sisters, plz read psalm 139, among other verses. We separate ourselves, and THAT'S hell...

    Blessings... luv, Jess :eek:
     
  17. flaming pearl

    flaming pearl New Member

    Sorry to go slightly off topic but
    Just wanted to know how that would work. Most religions I've come across are fairly, erm, exclusive, for want of a better word, on what you believe (does of course depend on which ones you're talking about)
     
  18. AZeitung

    AZeitung The power of Grayskull

    You say that like it would be a bad thing :D

    Besides, that still wouldn't mean that *only* 2/3 go to hell.
     
  19. Johnno

    Johnno Valued Member

    Thanks for the link. It was interesting. Although it preached tolerance and respect for other religions, it never actually said that people of other faiths wouldn't automatically go to hell. And that is still the Christian viewpoint as far as I can see.

    It was very nice of the Catholic Church to say that not all Jews are guilty of killing Jesus though. Only took them two thousand years of persecution to get round to it. :bang:
     
  20. KickChick

    KickChick Valued Member

    Revelation!

    Did you hear this?? I read this in the newspaper.

    .... 666 is not the number of the beast (it's a devilish 616)

    A newly discovered fragment of the oldest surviving copy of the New Testament indicates that, as far as the Antichrist goes, theologians, scholars, heavy metal groups, and television evangelists have got the wrong number!

    Instead of 666, it's actually 616 !

    In the Book of Revelation 13:18, the text reads something like:
    "Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six."

    The new fragment from the Book of Revelation, written in ancient Greek and dating from the late third century, was discovered in a historic dumps outside Oxyrhynchus in Egypt. A team of expert classicists, using new photographic techniques, are deciphering the original writing.

    Professor David Parker, Professor of New Testament Textual Criticism and Paleography at the University of Birmingham, thinks that 616, although less memorable than 666, is the original. He said: "This is an example of gematria, where numbers are based on the numerical values of letters in people's names. Early Christians would use numbers to hide the identity of people who they were attacking: 616 refers to the Emperor Caligula
     

Share This Page